I was sent an email from a concerned Orthodox Christian who lives on the Western Coast of the USA, so I have responded here:
Even if your home is structurally sound and could withstand a 9.2 earthquake, it is the LOCATION that is even more important. The article in the New Yorker is a great wake up call, and several authorities said that it was very well written.
If anyone lives in coastal communities such as Seattle, Portland, Eugene, or San Francisco and their home is west of the I-5, it might be best to relocate because the prediction is dire according to the New Yorker magazine and a FEMA response to it.
If a person lives west of the Interstate 5, look at the map. How far away is the ocean? Are tsunami warning zones posted nearby? If so, how long would it take to get in the car and head to a safe elevation?
Then consider, if a thousand or 100,000 people will be heading for the same major intersections and freeways at the same time, what is the chance of survival if a huge tsunami more than 100 feet tall is heading straight for the coastline within 15 minutes after that earthquake? If there are multiple aftershocks and tsunamis with waves after waves of cold salt water, the structural safety of a building would not matter, not if something big like a ship or truck were to plunge on top of it. Often there is a precursor to the big one, but that first shake could be a huge one that measures 6 or 7, which could cause lots of road rubble, road rage, and impassable roads. Of more concern would be the idiots with road rage on meth, statin, psychoactive drugs, or a combination of the above.
If a person lives in the foothills or at an elevation of at least 1000 feet, are there emergency stores of food and water? Remember that water, electricity and gas could all be disrupted. Fires could break out in the neighborhood due to non-functioning gas shut off valves or broken lines.
How far is the nearest dam, river, or reservoir? I knew some folks who moved from the California coastline to avoid the big one, but who moved into a new home downstream from a huge dam. They were killed in the massive and sudden flood that resulted when that dam broke, not from an earthquake, but from flooding rains like Texas has experienced recently.
Anyway, in some cases, it might be best to move to a safer location rather than trying to fix a structure that cannot possibly withstand a tsunami, fire, or flood. However, in other cases, if one were to move, there might be unseen dangers. For example, out here in the West, there are always fire dangers inland, where a person might have only 15 minutes to evacuate. The recent San Bernardino foothills fire on July 17, 2015, destroyed 20 cars as the fire crossed the freeway. That was many miles inland.
In the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, what killed more people than the initial earthquakes were the fires. People could not evacuate in time.
If a person is at a safer elevation, then consider the food supply. How would a local food store restock in a disaster with roads destroyed or weakened? What about city water? How much do should one have in reserve just in case the city water is disrupted by ground leaks, pipe breakages, and sinkholes? What about electricity and gas? A propane gas camping stove with spare tanks is a good idea.
Most cities have an emergency preparedness guide, but again, if a person lives west of the I-15, that guide might not help.